US v. Michael Behrens
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:13-cr-00040-JPB-JES-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [14-4808]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (5:13-cr-00040-JPB-JES-1)
May 21, 2015
May 27, 2015
Before KING, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott C. Brown, SCOTT C. BROWN LAW OFFICE, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellant.
David J. Perri, Assistant United
States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
obstructing and resisting an officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 111(a)(1) (2012).
The district court sentenced Behrens to 24
On appeal, Behrens’ counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but
raising as an issue for review whether the district court erred
Government declined to file a brief.
Behrens was informed of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not
This court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion
for judgment of acquittal de novo.
United States v. Reed, 780
sustained if there is substantial evidence, when viewed in the
light most favorable to the government, to support it.
“Substantial evidence is that which ‘a reasonable finder of fact
could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion
(quoting United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104, 139 (4th Cir.
To establish the offense of obstructing and resisting an
Pg: 3 of 4
interfered” with a federal law enforcement officer; (2) “this
occurred while the officer was engaged in the performance of his
official duties;” and (3) Behrens did so willfully.
United States, 691 F.2d 1275, 1280 (8th Cir. 1982); see also
assault a federal officer.”).
Our review of the record shows
that substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and the
judgment of acquittal.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
requires that counsel inform Behrens, in writing, of the right
to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Behrens.
Pg: 4 of 4
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?